The problem for me is a "political" one, not a matter of convenience: When I choose a linux distro I implicitly trust the distro maintainers to not backdoor the liveCD, so I might as well trust them to maintain packages transparently. If something happens upstream, we expect the distro maintainers to patch out undesirable behavior, integrate changes into the system as a whole or warn us of changes. Most distros are the same in functionality: the choice of a certain distro is mostly a choice of which political institution (such as a business or non-profit) that we trust to maintain the interoperability of the OS.

Languages need to be more agnostic than a package manager requires because I should not have to rope another organization into my trust model.

Cargo already goes too far in encouraging a single repository (crates.io) for everything through its default behavior. Who maintains crates.io? Where is the transparency? This is the most important information the user should know when deciding to use crates.io, which is whether or not they can trust the maintainers not to backdoor code, and it is rarely discussed or even mentioned!

The default cargo crate (template?) encourages people to use permissive licensing for their code. So that is an example where you are already making implicit political decisions on behalf of the ecosystem and developers. That is alarming and should not be for the language maintainers to decide at all.

In C/C++ you have a separation of the standard from the implementation. This is really what makes C/C++ code long-lived, because you do not have to worry about the standard being hijacked by a single group. You have a standard and multiple competing implementations, like the WWW. I cannot encourage the use of Rust while there is only a single widely-accepted implementation.

The problem with that is that no Linux distro maintainer will ever put effort into maintaining every version of every library and compiler perpetually for a specific, seemingly random, programming language (or at least, reasonably, within few major versions including all minor releases in between), but with a tool that versions dependencies and allows for, say, git-based upstream with tag-versioned releases, you can expect to pick any specific version and for things to just work; managing library code for a specific programming language, be it any language, does not seem like the responsibility of an operating system, if anything, the package manager from your OS should be able to just supply the tool to manage the said language (like you currently can with npm, cargo or go); that also does not touch the topic of making things work across different platforms, sure, you maybe found a way to solve this issue in your imaginary Linux distro, how do you solve the problem for a co-developer that uses Windows, or macOS?

Additionally, you do not have to necessarily enforce these things on the language level, the standard and the tooling could live as two independent projects coming from the same entity. You could still use the compiler and the libraries from your OS, and build the code like that, or you could just reach out to an optional standardized tool that serves as a glue for all the external tools in a standardized way.

Yes, there are a lot of valid concerns with this approach as well, but personally for me, as a frustrated C++ developer, who is most likely going to still use the language for a decade to come, I feel like all the other languages I had mentioned in my previous post had addressed what is my biggest point of frustration with C++, so it's definitely an issue that could be solved. Many tried to do it independently, but due to personal differences, no funding, and different ideas of what should be the scope of such tooling, we ended up with a very fragmented ecosystem of tools, none of which have yet to date been able to fully address an issue that other languages solved.